Question for people against the death penalty?

[YamiB.]

Killing somebody in self-defense is morally acceptable. If possible it should be avoided, but a person can not be held accountable if they are defending themselves from an attack.

This is not comparable to a situation where you are giving out punishment after a person has already been contained and can be dealt with more safely and humanely. A more accurate comparison would be would it be moral for a person to subduing their attacker, tying them up and then killing them. Though this comparison does exclude the obvious problem of possibly executing an innocent.

 

[Bodi]

In a self defense situation, how do you feel about somebody who kills their attacker?

This isn't a question of how you think they should be punished, but rather, should they even have the right to take the life of somebody trying to take theirs?

Depends on who and what they attacker is after and their intent.

If some guy grabs my wallet when I am at a bar paying and he kinda pushes me and then stands there ready cause I am getting up, I don't think killing him is really called for.

If some guy goes after my daughter, like what happened one time, and I am standing there in front of her, and he is sorta predatory in trying to slowly circle me as I circle with him with my girl behind me, and eyeing her like he was... well, if he had tried a bit harder I would have killed him in a second. He left his throat open and I almost went for it as it was, but I took no chances with my daughter there at opening a dangerous encounter if I didn't have to.

If it is even close to having your life in danger, and you can kill the attacker, I say that it is not only OK to do, but the defender that does it should be rewarded.

EDIT: at times like the situation I described, I almost go buy a gun myself, and change my stance about guns.

 

[Bodi]

Originally Posted by Arcana XV
The death penalty is different because there is plenty of time to think about what to do. The killer is behind bars. What is the point of killing them at this point other than for revenge?

Simple consequence...

 

[Laila]

I morally object to the death penalty because the idea of an innocent person being put to death by the State is unconscionable. I would rather see ten guilty men go free than have one innocent man put to death.

So, the answer to your question is, yes, a person should be able to kill another in self-defense as there is no possibility of an innocent being put to death (freak accidents notwithstanding).

My argument against death penalty has already been said in a wonderful way by Ethereal.

It's a barbaric system to use - basically just revenge in the 21st century.
I hardly see DP as a deterrant or a punishment, a few seconds of pain and then death or a lifetime of knowing you will never have freedom again?

 

[Arcana XV]

Deterrence. I know that if I exceed the speed limit there's a chance I'll get caught and pay a penalty - so I try not to do it (though admittedly not always). You can bet I'll slow down, at least for awhile, after receiving one.

If they don't follow through with the death penalty when someone has been thoroughly proven to be deserving of it (ie, generally failed appeal after failed appeal), it's not a very effective deterrent.

I'm not really convinced by the deterrent argument. The last time I looked into this, violent crime statistics were not any lower in states that use the death penalty. In some cases, my memory is thinking Texas for some reason, they were actually higher.

There wasn't sufficient evidence that the DP is an effective deterrent to justify giving my support to the state legally murdering people. As far as I'm concerned, life in prison with zero possibility of parole is an adequate punishment. There's no need for all this "an eye for an eye" biblical stuff.

 

[Arcana XV]

Simple consequence...

So they can also rot in prison for life as a consequence. Why kill them?

 

[Analyst]

I'm not really convinced by the deterrent argument. The last time I looked into this, violent crime statistics were not any lower in states that use the death penalty. In some cases, my memory is thinking Texas for some reason, they were actually higher.

There wasn't sufficient evidence that the DP is an effective deterrent to justify giving my support to the state legally murdering people. As far as I'm concerned, life in prison with zero possibility of parole is an adequate punishment. There's no need for all this "an eye for an eye" biblical stuff.

I agree it's a tough one, and I wasn't aware of the statistics - happen to have a link? I'd be interested if you have one handy.

I suppose I'm considering the extreme cases - the Ted Bundy's of the world.

I sat on a jury for a civil sexual commitment case in 2007. They described in hideous detail all of the horrible things this man did to women - he was an anti-social psychotic.

An example:

*Explicit detail warning*














This man waylaid a woman in a parking lot on the way to her car, forced her inside and proceeded to rape her. While he raped her, he forced her to hold his KNIFE between her teeth - lengthwise, so the point was facing inward. She was barely able to prevent it from slashing her throat open from the inside - all the while this man is forcing himself on her sexually.

We heard her testimony 10 years after it happened, and she was still horribly traumatized. The social worker testified that this woman was the most emotionally shattered woman she'd ever seen. I'd be shocked if her life as she knew it wasn't completely ruined by this man.

That was just one of many acts he committed, and he wasn't even on death row. Does someone like him (or worse than him) deserve to die? I don't know about you, but if it were my decision to make, God help me but the answer would be clear.

I don't buy that life in prison is as awful as some people seem to think. Many freedoms are stripped away, it is true, and it's probably pretty awful at first, but after some time as a "model prisoner" you can lead some semblance of a normal life in prison with many of the perks of regular living (and without having to hold down a job). This is more than some men deserve.

 

[Bodi]

So they can also rot in prison for life as a consequence. Why kill them?

They don't have to be killed. It is just that some crimes warrant death. If a person displays that they are unable or unwilling to abide by a few simple societal rules about; not killing, not raping, not kidnapping, not molesting... then they, by consequence, have chosen or displayed that they are unfit to live. That is all... society is not and should not be responsible for maintaining the life of one that has taken this path. It is nothing about revenge or deterrence either. Deterrence does not work. It is a Consequence. This is about ethics and logic.

 

[talloulou]

Killing someone when you must kill them or be killed is not barbaric. Sticking them in a chair months and months or even years and years later when their danger to you has been diffused is.

 

[Ikari]

Does someone like him (or worse than him) deserve to die?

Probably, but I don't think it's our call. There is no longer need for the death penalty. So someone does horrible acts, that's what jail is for. And maybe they can live a "normal" life in the end (yeah right, someone in jail for life isn't at the happy happy prison resort less they are some very rich, well connected guy and it's still not all that happy), you know what...good. Maybe they found some peace in the end. Who are we to say differently. Revenge isn't a good enough reason for the death penalty, and that's what it comes down to. It's not a deterrent and it's only a consequence for as long as we say it's a consequence. Tomorrow, we could remove it as a consequence. Life in jail is good enough plus it gets away from the moral ambiguity that is the death penalty.

In the end, it's a penalty which will get a certain amount of innocent people, and some may be sick enough to be ok with that. But given that there is no coming back from death, with something this severe we should be very reserved in employing. An innocent man killed is an innocent man gone, this isn't like if he's in jail for 7-8 years and then found innocent. Dead is dead, and this speaks further to the government having a method open to it in which they could "legally" dispatch with their citizens. In the end, I think that there are too many inadequacies and inefficiencies and expense which go along with the death penalty. We've grown enough and established our government/police well enough that we no longer need the death penalty. Let it go the way of witch burnings.

 

[Analyst]

I respect your position. It's not a question that should be answered lightly, and I admit my conscience agrees with what you are saying. Man is not God, and should not pretend to be. I also generally take the position that you can't undo violence by committing more violence, but for the most extreme cases I find it difficult not to see death as the only truly fair and just consequence.